warhammer40kfanonfandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Belligerent Templars
Why was this made? Imposter101 (talk) 23:45, May 23, 2013 (UTC) "They ARE not angry marines successors" Just the entire concept is plagiarised and this needs to be deleted. Imposter101 (talk) 23:50, May 23, 2013 (UTC) Really? Right before I can write in their background, their characters, and their campaigns? You are a TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Valarian of Naples| (talk)]] (talk) 00:12, May 24, 2013 (UTC) Because I believe your chapter to be plagiarised work, and am bring up the topic, doesn't make me a troll. Do you know what a troll is? Or is it just another Internet insult that you call anyone whose opinion differs from you? But Naples, I will give it to you that the chapter is not as badly plagiarised as it once was. Your only involving the Angry Marines because your chapter has no humorous substance of it's own to stand on. *Also, I love the fact you have to remind us a few times in the article that they AREN'T Angry marines. Imposter101 (talk) 06:48, May 24, 2013 (UTC) What is this crap? The community didn't want this article to be created, and you created it. Unless you actually make up some genuinely funny ideas than it has no place as a humour article or anything else. ffs -- NecrusIV -(''Talk'' |My Wiki) 10:51, May 24, 2013 (UTC) I'm agreeing with Nercus, this article's blog was universally panned. Why did you make it? It's also as funny as in the way being sterile is funny. Imposter101 (talk) 10:59, May 24, 2013 (UTC) Uh. Yeah, funny. A movie starring Adam Sandler would be funnier than this. And that's bloody saying something -- NecrusIV -(''Talk'' |My Wiki) 11:06, May 24, 2013 (UTC) A quote from the article; "One thing that the entire chapter agrees on, however, is that Matt Ward is a molester of pen and paper and that he's murdering Warhammer 40k. As such, the common iconography depicts a cancel sign over Matt Ward's face." My reaction; http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/dd358/iwanttorentawombat/facemelt.gif Imposter101 (talk) 12:18, May 24, 2013 (UTC) THE RUSTLING SHALL BEGIN AT YOUR COMMAND, SOL -- NecrusIV -(''Talk'' |My Wiki) 12:58, May 24, 2013 (UTC) All of that aside. I have never felt that the Angry Marines were that funny. Mildly amusing at times, but in general not very tasteful humor. So a Chaoter created using their humor as a base doesn't really tickle my fancy. I am your master! At your service. (talk) 04:07, May 25, 2013 (UTC) The only reason that this article is marked as "humor" is because it WILL NOT fit in with the canon. Everyone has given me a hard time about it, and if you saying "Let's make everyone hate this chump because he made a chapter that won't fit in with canon", then why do you even bother me? P.S. Just because the Belligerent Templars die does not mean that Rageus Quitus will go down with them. Remember he's the only Chaplain that's also got recognition in the commissarat and the Inquisition, so do you not think I can make a funny article about Rageus Quitus? I mean seriously! If you kill this article I can say that he marked everone else in his chapter as a vile heretic for these reasons: A. They aren't even funny, B. They are plagiarizing Chumps, C. Heretical Xenos liking, and D. Heresy, plain and simple. So, you've admitted you only used the Humour tag to bypass rules? Doesn't the break the rules? Imposter101 (talk) 23:54, June 16, 2013 (UTC) New content states tthat the Belligerent Templars are now all Heretics, for being Batshit Insane. Your argument is invalid. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go make Rageus Quitus funny. Valarian of Naples (talk) 23:56, June 16, 2013 (UTC) It doesn't. My argument is that this article is manipulating tags to bypass rules, which is in incredibly poor taste. Imposter101 (talk) 23:58, June 16, 2013 (UTC) Valarian I know that you are probably not going to listen to me, but that is a bad idea. I am your master! At your service. (talk) 00:02, June 17, 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry if it semmed like I was saying that I'm bypassing tags, but under pressure I tend to get deeper into an argument. I thought that this article would have it's own cue of humor, but it seems that it just went downhill, and it's all because everyone has to take the point of humor too seriously. I guess that if I can't get any credabillity with a Rageus Quitus article ( and don't say that I have to change his name), then all that I will end up writing is a bunch of articles that are ten times more depressing than any version of Grave of the Fireflies. Why did this whole thing have to spiral out of control? It all started with simply being a convention about writing the Oddesy of a Space Marine chapter, but now it's just a beacon for hate. Valarian of Naples (talk) 00:58, June 17, 2013 (UTC) Now brothers on to a new erra of UNREASONABLE HATERED! YEA HATERED HUZZAAH!Plaguenumber3 (talk) 01:07, June 17, 2013 (UTC) This article could just be deleted on the grounds that it doesn't adhere fully to the quality guidelines. Also, articles that start to antagonise the community tend to get deleted as well. Doesn't matter what you say to defend it, if it's annoying mass amounts of people then the respects of the 40k Fanon Wiki community need to be taken in to consideration. KhalaelMy Talk 14:06, June 17, 2013 (UTC) I have have started work on Rageus Quitus . BTW when I made the blog post I was asking everyone wether or not they could help create stories for this now-contriversial article. I was not asking for any kind of vote on it's creation. Valarian of Naples (talk) 00:53, June 20, 2013 (UTC) Very well, then. I will put this article up for deletion as soon as I can. After all, Rageus Quitus would most defenitely BURN the article. Valarian of Naples (talk) 01:04, June 20, 2013 (UTC)